Tuesday, May 4th, 2010 at 9:25 AM
Turko on Nantucket Part 1
Posted on Tuesday, May 4th, 2010 at 9:25 AM in Builders, Buying at Trustee Sale, North County Coastal, Train Wrecks | 23 Comments » | 
Print
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
KUSI’s puny servers can’t handle the JtR-alanche.
W.C. Varones | May 4th, 2010 at 9:58 amhttp://www.kusi.com/features/turko/92742104.html
Jim the Realtor | May 4th, 2010 at 9:59 amlove Turko. They need someone like him in every city.
Erin | May 4th, 2010 at 10:08 amWow, those are some whiny neighbors. Doesn’t make them wrong but whiny
Anonymous | May 4th, 2010 at 10:20 amSo let’s sort this out…
The city has a questionable agenda to force builders to build “affordable housing”
Builder has no intention to build affordable housing and goes out of business before they say that they’re going to build housing that isn’t profitable.
Now someone in the city is flexing their socialist muscle not letting the “ghost home” sale go through.
It’s time for the Encinitas officials to admit defeat. You lost, better luck next time. Let a new TAXPAYING occupant move in.
shadash | May 4th, 2010 at 10:26 amTurko should be looking to the former owner of the greenhouses who kept the home on the affordable lot then tore it down and never built it…bet he can be found at the flower fields or in a big house on the encinitas ranch golf course…just sayin’…
littleflowermanshouldhavebuiltit | May 4th, 2010 at 11:08 amThe former owner who developed the lots (and sold to Barratt) used a State law called Density Bonus to add an extra lot or two above the standard Encinitas zoning. He made out big.
Thus each extra lot earned him an extra $500k or so when sold to barratt.
This state law allows you to add an extra 20% or so (unsure of the percentage…which is rounded up to the next whole lot) of lots in exchange for adding a low income housing unit/s.
Thus, Encinitas was forced into the excessive density which they would never have approved and are very correct in standing their ground and demanding the associated low income unit.
For once I agree with the gov….wow, it is painful to say that..
encinitas is correct for once | May 4th, 2010 at 11:14 amProbably the only buyer with any skin in the game is the one who purchased at the steps. It is kind of the ultimate irony. The deadbeats are living in their houses for free on the tab of the taxpayer and the guy who paid cash is locked out on the street. This really is the ultimate indication of what this country has become. What a nightmare. I bet the buyer can’t even get hazard insurance. What if it burns down?
pemeliza | May 4th, 2010 at 11:27 amDamn, what whiney neighbors. If they actually care about their property values more than flapping their lips, they should have the HOA maintain the house. And if there is no HOA, they should take up a neighborhood collection and do it themselves.
And I too agree with the city. They should hold out for the promised benefit (the affordable unit) that was promised in exchange for the added density. Otherwise, every rinky-dink developer is going to “declare BK” of their purpose made LLC that gets the density bonus in the future.
FreedomCM | May 4th, 2010 at 11:41 am“Density bonus” = tiny lots next to low-income housing.
That’s a real bonus!
W.C. Varones | May 4th, 2010 at 11:52 amAmerican Brains and Egos at work with small town dimwit and grossly incompetant officials with no skin in the game calling the shots with typically disasterous and predictable results.
“Builder” BK, then to B of A. . . Cha Cha Cha.
http://moveyourmoney.info
Take your personal revenge on Too Big to Fail, put them out of business the American Way.
3rd Generation | May 4th, 2010 at 1:08 pmMaybe pass the hat around the neighborhood and to the new owners of the ghost house to buy the low income lot and put up a house? Sell it off to hopefully break even and then everyone is happy!
Now that’s thinking outside the box…
Dave | May 4th, 2010 at 1:41 pm2M people die per year from mosquitos. I read that on the internet so it must be true.
justme | May 4th, 2010 at 2:29 pmHow long would it take to trim up the non-existent front ‘yard’? an hour maybe? yes, very whiny
osidebuyer | May 4th, 2010 at 3:24 pmI think there are some cheap used mobile homes for sale on 101 in Solana beach. Grab one of those things and slap in on that property and call it a day. That should solve it. Everybody wins!
waiting_for_ever_to_Buy | May 4th, 2010 at 7:16 pmIf someone wants to give me that empty lot gratis I’ll be happy to build something “affordable” on it
Art Eclectic | May 4th, 2010 at 8:04 pmProbably the only solution is for the buyer of the house to buy the vacant lot (owned seperately) or a similiar property and build the affordable housing himself. Of course, if the buyer had any brains, he would have done his due dilegence and not purchased the house in the first place. Clearly amateur hour there, and a reason not to buy at the trustee auction, at least without somebody like Jim backing you up.
Geotpf | May 4th, 2010 at 11:26 pmspeaking of Barrat Homes, the remaining lots/houses are for sale at Magnolia Estates in Carlsbad. Someone thinks it’s 2004/2005 again! I’m not sure who is selling them, but the brokers held an house last weekend and I smelled a scam brewing!
Punky | May 5th, 2010 at 7:53 ampeople.
Sell the vacant house and get someone in there so it’s not some eyesore, or squatter’s dig. The City of Encinitas can then build the “affordable” house from tax revenues — with a sunset clause that after so many years, it will no longer be classified as “affordable” — and rent it out until then, with the rent going to the city. The city will take a hit on the front end because rent won’t cover all the building costs, but they’ll more than make up for it on the back end when it’s sold and the city gets the sale proceeds…and subsequent property tax revenues.
On the second phase, Turko should “persuade” Barratt’s Pattinson to finish the job for cost (hire his former crew back) with financing courtesy of a local Encinitas/San Diego bank. Then have JtR handle the sales. I miss anything…?
Oh yeah, buck Fank of Amerika.
common-sense | May 5th, 2010 at 8:21 amThe post should’ve read: (insert caustic adjective) people.
I’d used the less than/greater than brackets and it saw it as HTML.
common-sense | May 5th, 2010 at 8:23 am“And I too agree with the city. They should hold out for the promised benefit (the affordable unit) that was promised in exchange for the added density. Otherwise, every rinky-dink developer is going to “declare BK” of their purpose made LLC that gets the density bonus in the future.”
The city made an agreement with the builder to allow the added density in exchange for an “affordable” unit, and it met its end of the bargain. No further concessions should be made.
If the builder isn’t going to build the “affordable” unit, the city should use eminent domain to seize one of the unsold houses at the current market value of the empty “affordable” lot, designate that house as “affordable,” sell it at a below-market price to someone who can afford to buy it and call the deal complete. Then they can allow the buyer of the other house to move in and hand the empty lot back to the builder to figure out what to do with. If enough time goes by and the builder doesn’t put something on the lot, then seize it as an eyesore/public hazard and offer it to the HOA to make themselves a neighborhood park or playground if they’re willing to take on the expense of building and maintaining it.
GeneK | May 5th, 2010 at 12:23 pmNice post GeneK … you should run for office.
pemeliza | May 5th, 2010 at 12:49 pmThe story was solid. Can’t say I cared for the guy reporting it, or his impersonation of Joe Piscopo’s impersonation of Geraldo Rivera.
So, realistically, who’s left standing to fulfill the commitment to build the affordable unit? Since BofA seized all the properties, didn’t they also acquire all the liabilities and obligations in the same go?
ewhac | May 5th, 2010 at 8:23 pm